Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Many of you got issues with the new chaos codex. Often saying that the fluff is totally broken. As i see it, this codex reflects the way the Chaos forces works in the 41st millenium. The old legions play a minor role, often warring amongst themselves in the Eye of Terror. The real threat is the numerous traitor chapters out there, and thats whats being reflected by the codex. I like it.
Please explain why, or why not, you like the new codex - fluff wise. These current "I don't like it, because it sucks and is broken" brings nothing to the discussion.
And please, write coherently.
I haven't seen the new codex, but I've heard some of the arguments against it. Namely, that mark-specific legions are hamstrung by taking unnecessary restrictions for no benefit.
A few months ago, if you'd asked what the most competitive chaos list was, the answer would likely have been black legion (with a few dissenters calling out for one of the undivided legions because of some special thing they had.) It's not like we've just come out of some kind of golden age where everything was equal. It took me about a year to realize, with a sinking feeling in my heart, that I should be playing an undivided list instead of EC, because I was permanently restricted to playing with one style. It was always the case that to get the most competitive lists you had to forgo certain fluffy options.. So you like the thousand sons background? Forget ever winning a tournament..
The theory GW have taken with the last few codices they've produced is to favor one flexible list over many inflexible ones. You can see the theory there, even if in practice it may not always work. For one, it's kinder on new players because they don't get lured into hamstrung, one trick pony lists, and if well balanced, it should still be possible to make lists which incline towards various ends of the spectrum while still remaining reasonable competative. Yes, there are always cookie cutter 'killer' lists which are supposedly the perfect balance of units, but there always were. That's not the fault of the new codex, it's the fault of unimaginative people who don't want to build experimental or interesting lists.
The fact is, there is no perfect balance of units, and while it may be restrictive to field a mono-marked army, it always was. Innovative players will continue to build competative, interesting lists which incline towards one direction or specialization, it's just a question of how hard GW will have made it to do that.That's a point..The old legions play a minor role, often warring amongst themselves in the Eye of Terror. The real threat is the numerous traitor chapters out there, and thats whats being reflected by the codex. I like it.
Fluffwise, most of the major chaos battles will be during the Black Crusades. Rather than complaining about how the purity of our legions has been sullied, why not exploit this new emphasis by producing multi-legion crusade lists. They are still fluffy, they still allow us to keep our old marked legion models and play them in a fluffy environment (with a few new additions) and they'll be very competative.
All in all, I'm looking forward to the new codex, I love the new models (the terminators are beautiful, the new possessed make me want to strap the old ones to a rocket and fire them into the sun) and, as a long time lover of the Red Corsairs fluff, I'm feeling inspired to build an army sometime in the distant future when my Tau are finished. All in all, things have changed, let's adapt.
Here here!Originally Posted by The_Giant_Mantis
I personally love the new Codex. It makes making lists less of a nightmare, and almost any list type can be fielded effectively, giving you massive amounts of flexibility, both tactically and fluff-wise. I can't wait until I can get my hard copy.
Originally Posted by Brett on Quidditch[ 1500pt. Chaos List, C&C! ]
-=W: 2 -D: 0- L: 3=-
So, while newbs could have made vanilla lists before, now they have no choice. However, there will still be min maxers. How many newbs are really hurt by this? Is there a "save the newb" fund I can contribute too? Guess what, I had issues with IW over and over in the beginning. I didn't have a tourney list. I longed for marks, and deamon bombs, but I learned to play my army, and play it well. Atleast then I had a choice. I could of made them BL, EVEN AFTER I painted them. That was the beauty of a now dead system.it's kinder on new players because they don't get lured into hamstrung, one trick pony lists, and if well balanced, it should still be possible to make lists which incline towards various ends of the spectrum while still remaining reasonable competative. Yes, there are always cookie cutter 'killer' lists which are supposedly the perfect balance of units, but there always were. That's not the fault of the new codex, it's the fault of unimaginative people who don't want to build experimental or interesting lists.So, is it easier, or harder to build lists now? I thought it was supposed to be easier. It's not like figuring out a min max list takes a long time. Read the codex, abuse what is overpowered for the points, and bang, min max list.The fact is, there is no perfect balance of units, and while it may be restrictive to field a mono-marked army, it always was. Innovative players will continue to build competative, interesting lists which incline towards one direction or specialization, it's just a question of how hard GW will have made it to do that.
Even the 200+ point DPs were a HUGE gamble. Yeah, they were mean, but ther were also 20% of a 2000pt army in ONE UNIT! They're supposed to be powerful but they sacrificed survivabiliy and flexability. You have a lot of points in one unit that could do nothing. It's not like everyone ran towards the uber prince looking to get slaughtered.Because we have a choice?Fluffwise, most of the major chaos battles will be during the Black Crusades. Rather than complaining about how the purity of our legions has been sullied, why not exploit this new emphasis by producing multi-legion crusade lists.Yes, the ones that actually are new are nice, like the termies. The possessed are ok, but they'll only see the inside of cases. If I want cool looking possessed, I did this funnyt thing called "conversions"I love the new modelsThey have fluff?and, as a long time lover of the Red Corsairs fluffYou could of done all this before (besides mix mortal enimies) with BL. Nothing is new, we just loose:I'm feeling inspired to build an army sometime in the distant future when my Tau are finished. All in all, things have changed, let's adapt.
Conversions (no armory)
A variety of legions
Uniqueness (they're almost identical to SMs, atleast 75-80% so)
oh, and did I mention CHOICE!
Honestly, this must be a consequence of Socialism. Capitialists would be about choice, and may the best list win. Socialists want to make everything equal and accessable even to the unimaginitive.
The Eldar codex was a work of genious, the Chaos codex is about spikey SMs. It's unimaginitive, un-unique, and made for the lowest common denominator. Whoever designed the Eldar codex should be praised. However, not every army can have a codex with the exact same layout. Chaos was about CHOICE, the Armory, and Unique legions, what else is Chaos? Without this, we are nothing but slightly different SMs.
I love the new dex. It pushes the focus off the big 5 and onto all the others. More common legions and lords who have fallen to the dark temptations of the chaos Gods.
It has even got me thinking about shelving my beloved and unstoppable nids in favor a heavily mutated Word bearers list or maybe a more piratical red corsairs
The fluff is still the same. Any fluff anyone had before can still be used (except specific wargear fluff).
You played World Eaters? Just take Khorne units (marked or zerks).
You played Iron Warriors? Just take a load of Vindys (siegeweapons!) and Obs, fill out with weaponteams or something.
Easy as cake!
All the legions can be done, just not in the same way. But then ask this; were the legions fluff really the same as their special rules?
No way, fluff and rules are always two separate things, the legions fluff was the text next to the rules.
So, anyone who says; "OMG! You can mix ancient enemies! Whe are doomed!"
Please, don't mix them if you don't want to. It's easier then filling the forums with whining. And take a look at a thing called Black Legion in the old Codex, you could mix ancient enemies allready.
Then a response to Shoal07:
Why do you think we don't have a choice anymore? The codex is still varied in my opinion. You can still choose your legion and go for it, am i right?
Sure, the obvious options from the previous Codex (TH AC Havocs, anyone?) have shifted into something new, but no one is forcing you to take anything (except to follow FOC off course).
And conversions. I'm converting new daemon princes with wings. I'm remaking my oblits to fit the new equipment. I'm scratch-building sorcerers for my rubric squads.
Conversion can still be done, you just need an idea. No need for armouries.
Ah... The spiky marine argument.... I can't really see why so many claim "spiky marine" whenever discussion about the new codex occurs. We don't have vet skills and mutated champs anymore, but that's about it. We got monstrous creatures, we got possessed tanks. We got cult marines following different chaos gods.
How is a Plague Marine just a spiky marine? How is a Berzerker just a spiky Marine?
The basic chaos marine functions nearly the same as before, there's just a slight shift from the experienced hundreds of years old traitor to the more devoted one who can wield tripple armament. Can a non-spiky marine do that?
And last, a side note on socialism vs capitalism. That parallell is absurd. Gee, i wonder where a company who makes their living on selling plastic to kids fits?
I really don't think they're remaking codexes because of social leveling, they're just trying to squeese more money from us. And they'll sure get my money, because i'm liking the new codex (suprise ).
"And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped"
You don't need a squad of berserkers to be competative. There are always alternatives.Put it this way, I was hurt.. I started to play an army I loved the fluff of, and realized that my effectiveness was always going to be capped if I wanted to maintain any kind of fluff coherency with my list. Iron Warriors aren't the same, fluffwise they work fine as a vanilla chaos army, in fact, a lot of their fluff outright disagrees with the way their list used to work ('we use khorne troops as assault units.. only we can't have them.') The only legions which actually have fluff issues in the new codex are the marked ones.. Much of the fluff for the unmarked legions was written at a time when there was only one chaos list anyway, and alpha legion and night lords could still take marked units and daemons.Originally Posted by Shoal07The same.. But didn't it suck being capped because of the paint scheme you use? You're also overestimating how easy it was to use BL with a cult list.. You turn up somewhere with berserkers painted in EC colours or Thousand Sons models representing unmarked marines and someone's going to have a fit on you for not using their 'proper' list.Originally Posted by Shoal07If you min-max, you generally end up with a nemesis list anyway.. Nemesis lists lose sometimes, in fact, when they lose, it was generally both predictable and spectacular. World Eaters in the old army were almost always a nemesis list, and behold, even with the 'right' wargear and unit selections, they really couldn't beat some armies at all.. That's because, when you min max, your army only ever plays in one way.Originally Posted by Shoal07Yet, I recall countless posts pouring scorn on anyone who chose to take a greater daemon over a daemon prince, because a daemon prince was obviously the best choice. Don't romanticize the past, scroll back through the army list section.. Look at the number of daemon princes, and notice commonalities in their wargear choices, designed to exploit everything which was 'underpriced.' I personally feel my greater daemon did far more in most of the games I played than any daemon prince I could have designed, but even I stopped saying it publicly because the overwhelming wave of disagreement was unbearable.Even the 200+ point DPs were a HUGE gamble. Yeah, they were mean, but they were also 20% of a 2000pt army in ONE UNIT! They're supposed to be powerful but they sacrificed survivabiliy and flexability. You have a lot of points in one unit that could do nothing. It's not like everyone ran towards the uber prince looking to get slaughtered.You're talking about choice, so why complain about getting a wider choice of models?Yes, the ones that actually are new are nice, like the termies. The possessed are ok, but they'll only see the inside of cases. If I want cool looking possessed, I did this funny thing called "conversions"Yup, and it's ancient.. Look up the Badab War stuff, with the 'tiger claws' (later changed to the current incarnation of 'astral claws.') They also have an index astrates article entitled 'rogue sons', though I forget the white dwarf it's in.They have fluff?In the interests of avoiding modsmack, let's keep political theory out of this.Honestly, this must be a consequence of Socialism. Capitialists would be about choice, and may the best list win. Socialists want to make everything equal and accessible even to the unimaginative.
Actually, I do agree with you. As I said, I haven't seen the new codex, but if it is badly set up, then it's badly set up, and that will be a problem. Where I disagree is that the old codex was some kind of golden paragon for what all codices should be.. There was choice, but it was shallow. There were options, but some were 'better' than others.
You're right, the Eldar codex was brilliant. It restricted 'choice' but in a way which made the choices relevant and interesting. But have you noticed the number of cookie cutter Eldar lists floating around? Go on the Eldar forum and you'll find whiny veterans complaining about Eldar have got too easy to play with the new codex.
Sometimes things are annoying because they're genuinely bad. Sometimes, they're just annoying because they force us to change, or remove some of the complexity we've become accustomed to. If the new codex is genuinely bad, then I'll be annoyed. If, however, it just forces me to change how I've been playing, then so be it.. I'd rather have 2 or 3 decent, meaningful choices than hundreds of choices which are shallow and predictable because 90% of the codex is irrelevant fat which you'd have to be on drugs to pick, and only 10% is meaty goodness which everyone shouts cheese on anyway.
The debate with the new codex for me won't be whether or not it restricted choice, but whether the restriction of choice added any great depth of choice. It's increasingly sounding like it hasn't, but never mind..
I don't understand the whole armoury argument. How have we lost an armoury? Wasn't an armoury simply a list of wargear that our Aspiring Champions and Chaos Lords could take? As far as I know, we still have that, only we've lost a few choices over the years. I will miss certain options, that didn't do much but were fun to have, like bionics. I'm not sure what that has to do with conversion, though.
I also don't understand the argument about the Legions being gone, because you can basically take anything you want and make a Legion list now. Just because there are no special rules telling you "you may only take Plague Marines", does that mean that you cannot still do that and capture the essence of the Death Guard? I don't mean for anyone to take offense, but if you can't recreate a list without any special limitations, that just shows a lack of imagination. Who's truly unimaginative?
Spiky Marines? How are we like spiky Marines? Do our Chaos Lords get Rites of Battle? Can we cancel psychic powers with our Sorcerers? Our HQs serve a different purpose, albeit a similar one because they are still Marines above all else. Our troops choices have already been mentioned. Can Space Marines customise their Assault Marines to have extra attacks or an invulnerable save? Can Space Marines take Obliterators or Defilers? Possessed Marines? There are plenty of things Chaos has that the Space Marines don't. I could've called them spiky Marines in the old codex, if I wanted. Name one factor that makes Chaos Marines spiky Imperials that wasn't there in 3rd Edition.
People who have been reading the boards for any amount of time will probably know my opinion on the codex itself. I'm just pointing out what I feel is illogical in other peoples' arguments, so that we can have a reasoned discussion.
[QUOTE=NiteRabbit;993805]I don't understand the whole armoury argument. How have we lost an armoury? Wasn't an armoury simply a list of wargear that our Aspiring Champions and Chaos Lords could take? As far as I know, we still have that, only we've lost a few choices over the years./QUOTE]
We've lost about 60-70% of the options, counting all of the cult options.
And I wholly disagree with the arguement that you can replicate the old Legions with the new dex. They've lost so much flavour and customization, esepcially with the cult armies.
A Khorne army would feel completely different to a Nurgle army and so forth. Now they just feel as pale imitations of the cult lists, and the competitiveness (especially of Slaanesh) is now very disputed.
Not to mention the rise of armies that will be led by a Tzeentch Sorceror, with the bulk of the troops being Khorne Berserkers and Plague Marines...
Hive Fleet Fuzzy Bunny: Lots and lots of points of Nids (4000pts+)
The Chapter of the Damned: 5500pts of Dark Angels
The Children of Fulgrim: 5-6000pts of Emperors Children
The Kabal of the Bloodied Claw: 2000pts of Dark Eldar
And it wasn't before?Originally Posted by Havarel
Anyone ever seen a marked cult list win a tournament.. Thought not. They were pretty much the 'grey knights' of chaos.. You paid a lot of points for basic troops which had no real redundancy and only played in one way.
A thought which has crossed my mind.. Wasn't it always fluffily stupid to have lists entirely composed of CSM to represent the original legions? That's never how I saw them anyway.. I mean, the eye of terror is supposedly a huge area of space with billions of inhabitants, where one marine might easily rule an entire planet, and yet we have armies composed of nothing but marines.
Now, apparently we get another Codex sometime (in fact, if you believe the stuff Karmoon posted recently, we may be getting several,) so who knows, maybe there will be the one which is supposed to allow for cult list. Maybe it will even improve on the currently useless fluff adherence of the 'all marine' lists. But let's face it, when you get armies of CSM all together, fluffwise it's probably one of a few scenarios.. Either it's a black crusade, or a chapter has gone rogue. Both cases are easily covered by a single codex without legion specific rules.
I mean, people are talking about getting spikey marines.. But it's the Chaos Space Marines list. It was blatantly put together despite the fluff because people like playing space marines. If we really wanted to play something different (from marines anyway) and fluffy, why play an all chaos marine list?